Latest From Napo 12

It seems that Napo HQ are getting the message about the need for information loud and clear as this e-mail was sent to all members earlier today:-

Our feedback from the recent Chairs meeting and NEC is that members need a very brief statement on disputes, industrial action, the framework agreement and the staff split.  In other words, what exactly did we sign up to.  Here’s the digested version which we hope you find helpful.

1.       Does the “staff split” mean that we have lost the fight to keep Probation public?
The answer is No, No and No again!  The MoJ would have you believe otherwise.  Of course they would- think about it.   In theory, a sane approach to restructuring our work would be to split the cases first and then do the staff after.  So why on earth are they doing it backwards?  To demoralise us- they think we’ll simply give up campaigning.  We know it feels awful but don’t cave in to such a deliberate and crass attack on your morale.  

2.       We are still in national dispute.  
Our dispute covers the terms and conditions of members and the impact of the chaos that will follow TR on our clients and public safety.  None of these issues have gone away and are likely to intensify.  We are still working our hours (we know this isn’t perfect in a service like hours but we shouldn’t put in masses and masses of extra work to make life easier for the MoJ or potential bidders).  The dispute is open and industrial action still forms part of our overall strategy but timing is everything, and we can’t put all our eggs in one basket.
    

3.       We did not agree the staff split.
It was imposed and would have been regardless of the transfer agreement.  The staff split is, and always was, a dog’s dinner and that’s why we didn’t agree it.  It is why we are advising members to register grievances and appeals.  Use every avenue available to protect yourselves at work.  The National Agreement on Staff Transfer and Protections is entirely separate from the staff split.  It covers protecting members in future- this has been agreed because it is our responsibility to try and protect you for every eventual outcome as best we can.  It does not affect our campaign.  The Secretary of State will use this against us; “The unions have agreed!!!”.  This is the usual and entirely predictable nature of politics- ignore it and, instead, use the Agreement to hold your trust to account:

a)      The Agreement states that Trusts must adhere to agreed principles such as, “Transparent, equitable and straightforward processes relating to reorganisation.”  There follows a whole list of actions that Trusts should be taking.  Use the document to ensure that they follow the proper processes.  It will take time and effort on the employers’ part and so it should! 

b)      The Agreement also protects things like pay protection, redundancy, some continuity of employment etc.  It provides a basis for the series of “measures” meetings which are ongoing.  We are still in dispute.  Any attempt to renege on the agreement will trigger fresh disputes.

4.       To secure the Agreement we agreed to come out of local disputes relating singularly to this issue.
It does not mean we are out of national dispute.  Members’ grievances, branch disputes on other issues, work to rule, should all continue.  We do not agree with the staff split or the chaos of TR but, remember, while it remains in the public sector this is technically an exceptionally foolhardy restructure.  We know it won’t feel like that on the ground but that’s essentially what it is.  If we give up and feel deflated at this point we make the government’s life so easy in terms of privatisation.  If you have a gloomy day- don’t worry- we all have them.  Acknowledge it and then move on.  Recruit all staff not in a union to Napo.  We will be making every effort to keep Probation in the public sector and we can win. 

5.       It’s a hard slog but tenacity will win the day. 

Attachment:BR 09-2014 APPENDIX 1 TR - National Agreement 19 12 13 Final amended 28 1 14 Attachment to NNC and SCCOG Circular 2 2014

  

Best wishes

Tom Rendon     Ian Lawrence
National Chair  General Secretary

Update: Blimey, like buses, another comes along!

Dear All

This email provides some advice and guidance about dealing with the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation on our client group.  We have a professional responsibility to try to mitigate the worst aspects of the TR project.  

• In some trusts, there are plans to shift over a third of the cases to new officers.
• A change in officer can cause great disruption to clients and we have a professional obligation not to do this unless absolutely necessary and that there must be a proper audit trail for obvious reasons.
• It is our view that if a practitioner or manager assesses that a client should stay within a particular team or with a particular officer then they must do so.
• This approach seems to have the full support of the Secretary of State- see the verbatim transcript of his evidence to the Justice Select Committee below:

“…part of the process of migrating cases, so that they are properly allocated across those two groups, but without an absolute requirement to do so by the 1^st of April because we need to take it carefully, we need to do it over a period of time and make sure public safety is guaranteed, so if a particular offender is in the wrong group, but there is a good reason for them staying with the current offender manager, they will do so.  Over the course of next year [2014] there will be an extensive period of dry running in the public sector”

                                                                                                                                          

Chris Grayling, Secretary of State 4^th December 2013                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Napo Advice

If your cases (or the cases in your team) are being lined up for transfer, make an assessment of all those cases which you believe should stay within the team.  It may be for reasons of an established client/practitioner relationship, risk of harm, vulnerability or if you are mid-way through an intervention etc.  Make the case and explain briefly why these cases should stay put.

My own personal estimate from my old caseload was that there would be between 40-60% of my cases where a change of officer would seriously disrupt the client.  I would be very concerned about the potential for this to leave the client in distress or they might risk of reoffending.  If I made that case but was ignored in my request, and some harm arose from it, I would want an evidence trail that I had undertaken my professional duty.  The responsibility would then lie with the Trust for ramming through the disruptive restructure without due regard to proper client care. 

 

Of course, if more cases stay with their practitioners, the extensive period of dry running in the public sector would take even longer and might cause difficulty for privatisation.  That wouldn’t be my problem though because, as a practitioner or manager, my concern would be to the clients and their safety and that of the public.  It is important that local managers and practitioners discuss this in supervision.

 

An email or letter might be worded like this: 

Dear ACO [insert name of relevant senior manager]

 

I am concerned about the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation on our clients.  The mass transfer of cases to different officers makes me concerned about the disruption to their rehabilitation and potential risks to the public.  If I have to deal with a lot of new cases because of the new NPS/CRC restructure it will cause considerable stress to me (as an officer/manager- delete as appropriate).

 

Here is a list of the cases which should stay with (me/within the team- delete as appropriate) during the extensive period of dry running of the new structure within the public sector in line with the Secretary of State’s advice (cut an paste quote above).

 

[then give a list- you might want to group them into different categories- risk, progress on interventions, relationship/vulnerability]

 

If you are not minded to allow these cases to remain, I would like my request noted and an explanation as to why.

 

Regards

Important note for managers.

Napo appreciates that this initiative will be an additional task for you but we hope that you will appreciate the rationale behind it. If you are an ACO and in receipt of a lot of emails like this, we suggest that it should be within your level of seniority to grant these requests.  If not, you are advised to escalate this immediately to the Chief Executive or Director and let the staff member know that you acting upon it. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Tom

  

Tom Rendon
National Chair